corpus_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Show' implies a read-only operation and it names the two pieces of information returned (indexed content and freshness), but it omits any mention of permissions, side effects, or output format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded, waste-free, and directly conveys the tool's output. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-param, no-output-schema status tool, the description gives a basic idea of what is returned, but it is too thin to fully compensate for missing annotations and return-value details. An agent would still have questions about freshness format and whether any permissions are required.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document any input semantics, and the schema is trivially empty.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('show') and resource ('what is indexed and how fresh it is'), so an agent knows it retrieves corpus status rather than documents. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_docs or algorithm_updates, leaving ambiguity about when it is the right status check.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_doc, search_docs, or algorithm_updates. The description only says what it shows, not the conditions or contexts that call for it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.